Thursday, April 21, 2016

At the Heat Street editor's request, I wrote an article explaining why I support Donald Trump for the Republican nomination and the U.S. presidency:

I am often asked why I, a Christian libertarian and intellectual, would publicly support Donald Trump, a man of no fixed ideology, no apparent religious beliefs, multiple marriages, visible ties to the Clintons, and whose taste and sophistication tends to resemble that of a nouveau riche rhinoceros. It is a reasonable question. After all, how can anyone support a candidate whose public statements are, to put it mildly, inconsistent—when they are completely self-contradictory.

The answer is as simple as it is conclusive and convincing. Donald Trump is the only candidate in either major party whose personal interests are aligned with those of the American public rather than with the interests of the anti-nationalist elite who see America as nothing more than lines on a map and Americans as nothing more than 300 million economic units in the global economy.

The reason I trust Donald Trump, despite all his rhetorical meanderings, is that he is a traitor to his class. Unlike Hillary Clinton and Ted Cruz, both ordinary people who sold their souls in order to be granted a seat at the table of the Great Game, Donald Trump was born a member of the elite and he has always been welcome in the inner circles of both political parties. When I met him in 1988, it was at the Republican National Convention in New Orleans, where he was the personal guest of George Bush in his private suite there. Like the Bushes, like the Clintons, Trump is truly neither Republican nor Democrat. He is a lifetime member of America’s bi-factional ruling party.

Read the rest of it at Heat Street. And much respect for Louise Mensch, who could not be more opposed to Trump, but nevertheless asked me to make what I considered to be the best case for him.

Out of everyone, your arguments for Trump are the strongest I have come across. Why? Because you acknowledge Trump's faults, while still explaining why rolling the dice with him is still superior to doing so with anyone else.

I do appreciate (yet another) pro-Trump column that doesn't wash over his faults and flaws.

Too often the #NEVERTRUMP types paint pro-Trump supporters are "blinded," as if decades of seeing candidates from the GOP campaign one way, but return to form hasn't drilled the lesson into the heads of disenchanted/disenfranchised voters.

As a Brit, Donald Trump reminds me of men like Ronald Reagan and John Wayne in this sense: he's very, very American, warts and all.

It's hard to imagine Canada, England or Australia producing a man quite like Donald Trump. He's like a stick of rock that has "MADE IN THE USA" stamped all the way through.

I get the sense that elite Americans are ashamed of their countrymen, hence the constant frantic virtue signalling and oh-so-sophisticated internationalism to elevate themselves above the guns n' Bibles folks.

Not Trump. He seems like the kind of guy who would punch you in the mouth if you badmouthed America.

Maybe the closest living European to Trump's character is the reigning roi of French shitlords, Jean-Marie Le Pen.

I don't get the sense that Cruz cares about people. I get a little bit of a sense that Kasich cares I get a sense that Hillary cares about herself and I get a sense that Sanders like Obama hates the American people and enjoys being a disease and sticking it to them so to speak

" Donald Trump is the only candidate in either major party whose personal interests are aligned with those of the American public rather than with the interests of the anti-nationalist elite who see America as nothing more than lines on a map and Americans as nothing more than 300 million economic units in the global economy."

I find this to be neither conclusive nor convincing. First of all having actually gone through Donald Trump's financials I see no evidence what-so-ever that these positions he takes have anything to do with actual personal interests of his. Most of the man's money comes from golf courses and condo sales. So how exactly does locking down the border help him so much? In fact it seems to me that it would hurt him financially.

An accurate statement would be.. that Donald Trump's rhetoric aligns more with the interests of the American People. You could even say ONLY Donald Trump's rhetoric aligns with the interest of the american people. But its just talk.

And hey... aren't you the guy that just a few days ago argued that CEOs are more corrupt than politicians?

To put it in a more visceral, rhetorical framework with a single anecdote: can you imagine any other candidate running having sufficient loyalty, principle, integrity and character to stand by his campaign manager while he endured vicious dishonest slander at the hands of Michelle Fields and her media cronies, instead of doing the politically expedient thing of sacrificing his livelihood and career for momentary benefit?

I support Trump primarily because he's the only candidate who's correctly triaged the threats that face America and put himself in direct opposition to them: political correctness, immigration, foreign adventurism, and he's even said (some of) the right things about the Fed and Wall Street. But I can do so with a clear conscious because of his character.

So, why did he bring Roth, LeBow, Lorber and Icahn onboard?We're talking heavy investment in Chinese manufacturing with this bunch. Are they going to sabotage their investment in offshore low-labor-cost endeavors so they can "make America great again"? Given their dual US/Israeli citizen status, do these guys even want to make "America" great? I'm hoping that this is a cunning rope-a-dope strategy by Trump.

Trump's dad made his living building and renovating mostly lower cost apartment complexes and such.

That certainly doesn't sound like "born in the elite" to me. Unless his book is a total lie, he didn't seem to grow up upper class at all. His dad may have had money, but he was also a tight SOB with a nickel. Trump's description of his family sounds VERY working class in his biography.

Then he explains how he basically fast-talked his way into the top social club in Manhattan. Unless it's all lies, it looks to me like he bullrushed his way into the elite, just like he's doing in this election. They didn't want him, but they couldn't get rid of him either.

How did Whigs in the British Parliament supporting their like-minded fellows among the separatists in the American Colonies benefit Great Britain?

I find it interesting that critics of libertarianism's reduction of humans to economics-obsessed robots immediately analyze Trump on exactly that basis (Nate.) Are the uber-rich more robotic than the rest of us turn out to be?

So much of all this boils down to microscopic examination of politicians' WIIFM, when experience suggests that office-seekers are just as pulled around by irrational, sometimes conflicting impulses as everyone.

" 9. Blogger Nate April 21, 2016 8:35 AM ...Most of the man's money comes from golf courses and condo sales. So how exactly does locking down the border help him so much? In fact it seems to me that it would hurt him financially.

An accurate statement would be.. that Donald Trump's rhetoric aligns more with the interests of the American People. You could even say ONLY Donald Trump's rhetoric aligns with the interest of the american people. But its just talk.

And hey... aren't you the guy that just a few days ago argued that CEOs are more corrupt than politicians?"

As the man lightly napped on the street corner while hugging his drum and flag he heard someone say a name. It was a special name to the man for he had made a vow to continually disparage the man the name belonged to and do so in his own special way.

So up jumped the man with the drum and flag. He began marching toward whoever spoke the name while beating the drum with one hand, waving the flag with the other and singing at the top of his lungs. The lyrics were rarely exactly the same from day to day but they always hewed to a theme. The theme being to malign the man with the special name.

Some called the drumming man by his given name, if they knew it. Others, they knew him by another name, Knee-Jerk Man, for his knees came so high as he marched.

Nate wrote:Ultimately neither of us actually believe Trump. So Vox and I can't get to worked up over the disagreement.

I mean I say "Dude its just talk." and He says, "Oh I know. I don't trust him at all. I just think that he's the only one actually even bothering to talk the talk."

Once you establish that there isn't any actual trust there isn't much to argue about."If you cannot bring yourself to trust in Trump’s words, then you can safely trust in his vanity. It is true, of course, that every recent president has betrayed his supporters: George Bush raised taxes, Bill Clinton had sex with that woman, George H.W. Bush embraced an arrogant foreign policy, and Barack Obama has waged war from Syria to Ukraine. Will not Donald Trump do the same?

It is possible, but unlikely. Donald Trump loves to be loved by the American people. And it defies everything we know about human nature to believe that he will throw away that intoxicating populist love in favor of the approval of an anti-nationalist elite whose affections he has already rejected."

Indeed. The immigrants are playing on his golf courses and buying up his condos.

Curbing immigration would hurt his pay roll, but if you aren't selling things for a profit, what's the point in protecting a profit margin?

However, the people most hurt by immigration currently would not be able to afford those goods even without immigration. Unless Trump sees a future where immigration begins to cut into upper levels of employment...

Like tech...Middle management...And eventually upper management...

Perhaps he sees the current rate of immigration would have a direct effect on his grand children? Anyway, I'm more inclined to believe he's selfish in this (not that the result isn't the same).

He's already put a lot out there to not have SOME skin in it. You don't commit to a position with this much blowback for shits and giggles.

Whether candidates lie, lie to themselves or simply follow a path lit by random contacts with lobbyists (because they have no core principles to begin with), the outcome is incoherence.

When you have a national government that spends ~$3.69 trillion (that's >$11,000 per person) in a single year, and regulations dramatically affect almost every single dollar of GDP, the total probably would look like a stadium jammed full of drunken fans of every soccer franchise in Europe, the UK and Ireland...total chaos.

I'd be happy if the Clown-in-Chief simply stopped doubling down on bat-shit crazy stuff (inciting war with China & Russia, Cakes-for-Fags, scrotums-in-ladies'-rooms, depolicing, etc.), so I could pay less attention to this post-apogee slide into history and read a book.

I'm not so convinced that he is a "traitor to his class". If one considers that the American political and cultural elite have been co-opted by non-white political and religious interests who wish the destruction of America, and all the white world, a different interpretation is possible.

This is that Trump represents the native American Yankee WASP elite that used to be dominate in America. Is it possible that he is their man to restore America to greatness and political/ethnic homogeneity while pushing out the non-American, non-Christian parasitical elements?

Look kids... Most of donald trump's condo sales are to foreign buyers. and much of his money comes from international licensing deals. So again... financially... his positions do not make sense in terms of his own personal gain.

Thus... the only way he is doing this out of his own personal interest is if it is a matter of principle (chuckle.. yeah right) or vanity.

That makes some sense and is more compelling than what I generally hear from the typical Trumpfan. However, I think I and many other people would find supporting Trump more palatable if he ran as an independent. Winning as an independent would be the ultimate stick in the eye of the bi-factional establishment and it would give him more lateral freedom to create a meaningful turning point.

To put it in a more visceral, rhetorical framework with a single anecdote: can you imagine any other candidate running having sufficient loyalty, principle, integrity and character to stand by his campaign manager while he endured vicious dishonest slander at the hands of Michelle Fields and her media cronies, instead of doing the politically expedient thing of sacrificing his livelihood and career for momentary benefit?

Just look at what Trump has already given us. Jeb is out of the race. Does anyone doubt that we'd be suffering through a Clinton / Bush race this year if he hadn't gotten in the race and shaken things up?

I voted for Trump for one reason: he has all the right enemies (unless all of them are faking it and I'm cynical enough to consider that possibility).

I become more and more of a simple minded "Trump bot" every time I hear an anti-nationalist argument, anti-protectionist argument, or sit down with my #NeverTrump friend who thinks 90% Hispanic demos in church is "diversity" and good, supports BLM while railing against Trump's hateful rhetoric, and thinks Muslims are being discriminated against while Melissa's Cakes was a fraud by the religious right.

Trump is conquering the GOP, why he should settle for an Independent run? I mean, just kicking the traitorous Bush clan out of the public sphere is a great service to the country.

And that's not even the biggest thing that Trump has done. He moved the Overton window, shitlibs are massively triggered that people can now oppose immigration openly and tell illegals and their enablers to piss off, just wearing a MAGA hat.

"BUT NATE I WAS ASSURED IN THIS VERY THREAD THAT TRUMP WAS GOING TO LITERALLY MURDER EVERY SINGLE SJW"

Sure... I mean he's a self-described liberal and he's for universal healthcare... and thinks its discrimination to ask people with penises to use the restroom that was designed for people with penises...

@JoshThe only person who mentioned that Trump is a Yankee is Matamoros.

It's not about mentioning, it's about motive.

It certainly isn't about trying to educate the unwashed plebs here that Trump isn't perfect, because we've known that and agreed about that months ago. No shit he's not correct on everything, that was never anyone's serious, non-meme argument here.

He needs Manafort. Manafort has managed a contested convention. Lewandowski has not. There were structural problems with the campaign that needed to be addressed. He didn't fire Lewandowski, when there was a lot of pressure to do that.

An entertaining train wreck that might possibly take a fair bit of the establishment with him (or at least expose it for more to see), is quite preferable to the guaranteed failure while planting landmines for our children to step on that all the other candidates represent.

Or, as I might tell a math student: If you are deeply in debt, and you keep borrowing, how soon will your balance show a positive number? Never? Remember that when you are old enough to vote - because that negative number is going to be handed to YOU to deal with, just like my parents handed it to me as they continued borrowing.

@Vox,very pithy article and my thinking aligns with it. As I have been telling friends and acquaintances for months: Trump is almost 70; he has tons of money; many successful businesses and careers; a beautiful supportive wife and a loving family. Hell, even his ex-wives speak well of him. So, what does he need this for? Answer: absolutely nothing, nada, zip. So why is he running at all? Maybe, just maybe, he is truly concerned with the type of country his grandchildren will inherit.

As I have been telling friends and acquaintances for months: Trump is almost 70; he has tons of money; many successful businesses and careers; a beautiful supportive wife and a loving family. Hell, even his ex-wives speak well of him. So, what does he need this for? Answer: absolutely nothing, nada, zip. So why is he running at all? Maybe, just maybe, he is truly concerned with the type of country his grandchildren will inherit.

With the importation of 10% of the population every 10 years, and them voting 19 to 1 for the Cardassian torturer's view of truth, the opinion of the wall builder doesn't matter a whole lot in a situation that is not the major issue of the day. Trump as Bluto appears to be willing to do an important job of shoring up the actual legal structures that define what a nation is. Bluto's got a non-zero probability of actually re-establishing the nation's borders, language, and culture by making a good fence.

I admit the probability is low, but my calculation remains the same as it was in June of last year:

1. No one who has been involved in government will do a single thing but the status quo on replacement of American voters with a more deferential voting base - because they have not done so. Judgement rendered. I imagine Cromwell speaking to the present GOP and especially every GOP member of Congress.

2. No issue I care about is going to last long if that issue has already been extinguished in the lands these new voters are coming from - and, freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom of worship, freedom to open your own business, freedom to own a personal firearm and to have it on your person at all times - these are pretty rare where these people are coming from; one cannot expect a new arrival to break with the traditions of his countrymen as I have had it explained to me by too many of them that, so long as it's marginally better than the country they left, they will stay, and, if it turns too sour, they'll just go back home... All the while, they will vote to make it more like the country they left.

3. There is some nonzero probability that Trump will re-establish the national borders if he wants to act and spend all of his political capital and voter mandate within the first six months of his presidency, which is the necessary first step to recovering anything from the old, dead republic.

Good article, Vox. This entire election has reminded me of Milton Friedman's famous statement about how it is a mistake to try to elect the right people to office. Instead, you make it politically profitable for the wrong people to do the right things:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MEVI3bmN8TI

That, I think, is Vox's point about Trump's personal interests aligning with the country's. Scott Adams has made the point as well, that Trump's ego won't let him do a poor job as president. He won't be tied to the fortunes of his party or the ruling class because that's not where he comes from. His support comes from his populism, and his incentives are aligned with their interests. As Vox has on the bottom of the blog:

"SUCCESS COMES MOST SWIFTLY AND COMPLETELY NOT TO THE GREATEST OR PERHAPS EVEN TO THE ABLEST MEN, BUT TO THOSE WHOSE GIFTS ARE MOST COMPLETELY IN HARMONY WITH THE TASTE OF THEIR TIMES."

Josh wrote:Can't you ask the same questions about Romney?Yes. And get the same answer. Just because Romney was wrong because of his bubble experience with the elite doesn't mean that he wasn't sincere in his desire to fix the trajectory of our country. The documentary that came out a year or so after his bid made that pretty clear, in fact.

Lewandowski told CNN on Friday that the posts are "offensive" and said Nunberg would be fired if he indeed wrote those posts."They were offensive and they do not reflect Mr. Trump's position and we take them very seriously," he said. "If it determined that Mr. Nunberg made these statements then he will no longer be part of the campaign."

CM wrote:Indeed. The immigrants are playing on his golf courses and buying up his condos.

Curbing immigration would hurt his pay roll, but if you aren't selling things for a profit, what's the point in protecting a profit margin?

However, the people most hurt by immigration currently would not be able to afford those goods even without immigration. Unless Trump sees a future where immigration begins to cut into upper levels of employment...

Like tech...

Middle management...

And eventually upper management...

Already there in tech and accounting - plenty of h1bs for each. Not to mention the outsource companies from over seas bringing over their management teams even for the on shore presence (a few token Americans present there). Multi-nationals, top level of management is often disassociated from the nationality of the company's headquarters.

Oh come on Vox, come clean. You support Trump because he's the most likely to actually cause the US system to collapse on his watch. Others might simply enrich themselves or even repair it some. Only Trump has a real chance of bringing the whole thing down.

You just want US in chaos. I know it's not in your interest to reveal your hand, but I expect you to come clean at some point.

I've been reading your opinions since the WND days, and this is the first round I've ever seen you simply jettison truth and flat out lie about trivially provable things (kind of pathetically Obama-esque really). I guess you have to embrace lies once you embrace the Father of Lies, which you kind of have to for someone like Trump who is actually evil.

"Oh come on Vox, come clean. You support Trump because he's the most likely to actually cause the US system to collapse on his watch. Others might simply enrich themselves or even repair it some. Only Trump has a real chance of bringing the whole thing down."

That sounds like a good reason for me to support him. I dunno about Vox.

I've been reading your opinions since the WND days, and this is the first round I've ever seen you simply jettison truth and flat out lie about trivially provable things (kind of pathetically Obama-esque really). I guess you have to embrace lies once you embrace the Father of Lies, which you kind of have to for someone like Trump who is actually evil.

That's because you're flat-out wrong. I haven't. It simply means you're too stupid to grasp the concept of probability.

His complaint is you support your perception of Trump.. but your perception of Trump is purely fantasy and doesn't match reality at all.

Being Porky-lite in your 'this is all a great con, we're all doomed, doomed I say' prophecies doesn't make yours the more realistic, grounded view of the world and dissent the stuff of fantasy. It's just makes you Porky-lite.

Trump is imperfect? No shit, most people realize that. They're betting on him because he's the best option, and he's having a good cultural impact. He's getting others to speak up and speak more freely. His supporters tend to focus on the positive because morale matters. They like to stay upbeat, they like to get charged up. It motivates them. (Cue 'Oh your MORALE matters, am I hurting their FEE-FEES' act.)

Make your criticisms. Point out the flaws. That stuff's great. But when you hit the point where what really pisses you off is that people are taking a chance and getting optimistic - not that they're just plain wrong, but how-dare-they-get-excited-for-this - you eventually have to ask yourself, 'Wait, am I really being insightful here, or am I just the right-wing version of a fat bitter omega who launches into an angry diatribe about women whenever someone he knows is going on a date?'

The problem is neither Josh or Nate have any legit arguments. Nate has resorted to telling VD what he should have said in the article.

Nate, why don't you find somebody that wants you publish an article written by you about ANYTHING....oh never mind, that would be about the same odds as you gave Trump last Fall for winning the republican nomination.

A long time ago here on VD, Nate taught me that humans are rationalizing rather than rational creatures: they usually form opinions and then backfill perceived reality to minimize cognitive dissonance. It was a hard, but very good lesson for me and, while I still fall victim to this form of rationalizing all the time, it's made me a better person to recognize that trap I can often fall into.

Cruz is a distant 2nd choice for me. Cruz's stock has recently gone up with me. He is sounding very Reagan-like recently with his talk about there being too much regulation that strangles small to medium sized businesses (very true). It is music to my ears. It is unfortunate that Trump is not talking about this.

> ... and whose taste and sophistication tends to resemble that of a nouveau riche rhinoceros.

You do have a way with words. :)

> So how exactly does locking down the border help him so much? In fact it seems to me that it would hurt him financially.

Nate, the type of people who visit Trump's casinos and resorts or buy his condos aren't going to be stopped at the border.

> And hey... aren't you the guy that just a few days ago argued that CEOs are more corrupt than politicians?

CEO's of multi-national corporations. Since I made that same mistake reading his argument, I remember that detail. I could be wrong, but I believe while Trump has some international dealings, the majority are here in the US.

And the fat bitter omega isn't jealous of the guy going out on a date. He feels sorry for them!

Right?

Anyway, I'm helping you out here. But if the way of the Porky is that fulfilling for you, that's that. Me, I think the fat bitter omega should learn how to improve his lot, but I know it ain't in it for most of them.

Cruz leaves a bad taste in my mouth. There is just something off about him.

He reminds me of that guy in high school, the one who goes around trying to get everyone to vote for him for class president, constantly bugging everyone about it, and wants desperately to be "the big shot on campus". His suit he wears doesn't quite fit him. His walk is a little "too rehearsed" to appear more important than he knows he really is. He's a little too friendly to everyone. The instant the REAL "big shot on campus" walks in the room, everyone ignores him.

That sort of guy has no charisma. No one wants to follow him into a children's swimming pool, let alone as an elected official for a high school. He has no spark. Not only is his gravitas is all a show, he lacks showmanship. He has no panache. He lacks a certain je ne sais quoi.

Everyone wants to placate him all the while hoping he will just go away and leave them alone.

When the real big shot shows up with new radical ideas (Like building a wall, or stopping muslims from entering the country...) people are Energize! (Other people are also shocked, and dismayed at the total change in the system being proposed...) Finally there is a leader who they are willing to follow, who wants to lead his people. The "other guy", is dismayed at seeing the adulation that he feels he deserves. He tries to quickly jump on the bandwagon, and throw his own versions of those same new ideas out there. But it's too late... The damage is done. He is shown as the complete copycat that he really is.

I want Trump because his presidency will be Yuge, with a capital Y. It'll be a gas. His State of the Union speeches will be so yuge America may never recover. I bet he'll not stop carrying because SS protection. The value of Trump cannot be understated it's so Yuge.

Trump just took a side for transgender bathroom rights when talking about North Carolina and he took note of how much business that state lost. Oh well. Sort of ignoring his own loss of business due to his immigration stance. If Trump is willing to lose business on the way to the White House, why can't North Carolina stand up for common sense bathroom laws?

dd2k wrote:Oh come on Vox, come clean. You support Trump because he's the most likely to actually cause the US system to collapse on his watch. Others might simply enrich themselves or even repair it some. Only Trump has a real chance of bringing the whole thing down.

You just want US in chaos. I know it's not in your interest to reveal your hand, but I expect you to come clean at some point.

I've been reading your opinions since the WND days, and this is the first round I've ever seen you simply jettison truth and flat out lie about trivially provable things (kind of pathetically Obama-esque really). I guess you have to embrace lies once you embrace the Father of Lies, which you kind of have to for someone like Trump who is actually evil.

Have you considered that maybe, subconsciously, Vox thinks Trump will allow his Lizard Queen prediction to finally pan out?

That doesn't seem right. Bush the lesser was hated by some of the right people. But quite a lot of the 'wrong' people (and here I'm talking largely about Republicans) loved him too. People were able and willing to ignore that, because the deception was a lot stronger back then, and people operated under the delusion that Arlen Specter was more like them than different, politically.

I think a closer (but imperfect) comparison is Reagan. There he was hated by the left AND a good portion of the right. Including the Bush clan.

I was going to let it go on the other thread but obviously its washed up over here.

What are you all a bunch of paranoid pansies? As Trump even says in the article, its been going on for years and the rate of incidence is so low that to have to go make a law about it is stupid. The reaction to the law is even worse, but this was not exactly a fight for the times. Fact is the backlash from the openly pro cities would have probably naturally fixed this faster than preemptive action.

Neither side is right, but going full name and shame because someone thinks the problem is way below the threshold of who gives a #$#@ when the real problems are almost 100% related to immigration and globalism.

Porky's schtick was that the left was nigh-omnipotent and every apparent fuckup by them was a brilliant master strategy that everyone was too stupid to see, that every good moment for the right was a colossal failure on the same terms, and so on. And then proceeding to get into bitter personal grudge matches when people disagreed (wait, no, he was just laughing at them.)

I don't think Trump's the second coming. I think he's a surprise with good cultural impact and an unpredictable maverick. Good enough for me to gamble on, and I think good enough for many to do the same.

By the way, in addition to this NC Bathroom thing, Trump also flat out called Harriet Tubman on the 20 a stupid act of political correctness. I'm sure the people who are insisting the NC law comments is him showing his true colors will be back to saying he's lying again.

"The only place I feel safe now is in Utah. FYI, I am an evangelical Christian with 3 adopted black children. I don't feel safe around anti-semites, racists, or liberals. Utah is where I am moving."

Perhaps you should move to the nation in Africa from which you adopted these children. Given that sub saharan africans have an average IQ of about 70, and whites have an average IQ of 100, they are much more likely to succeed at life among their own people, in Africa. Perhaps you believe in your own magical ability to overcome this 2 standard deviation gap with your magical nurturing skills. Good luck with that.

For the guy who's 'not angry but laughing', you sure come across as someone who's as bitter as a eunuch at an orgy.

Anyway.

ya know the funny thing? even if I were a bitter omega... you'd still be

I'm the guy taking a chance on the most interesting candidate in generations. I knew he was 'pro-tranny' before this; he changed his laws so they can compete in his pageant bullshit. A shitty move, but it's outweighed by all the things he says that I like, and the effect I see him having.

Tell me... what's more cuck than calling bathrooms discriminatory?

Do you even know what that term means? I read Cuckservative. I seem to remember it dealt overwhelmingly with immigration, with PC narratives, and the cultural framing of that (Churchians and so on.) I missed all the chapters about bathroom trannies.

Are you one of those guys who hates @Nero on the grounds that he's flamingly gay?

You say while supporting a lover of the SJW narrative.

Yes, Porky-lite. You found me out. I'm Melissa Click in disguise. Bravo. I can see why people should trust your analysis, what with those great observation skills.

But the decision is sorta like choosing to ride a bike with two flat tyres versus riding a bike that's completely missing the chain. One may be a "better" choice, but you'll get about nowhere riding either one.

One thing I don't like about politics is that I start sounding like a racist when I am not

If you don't subscribe to the notions of eternal shame for things neither you nor your ancestors likely had anything to do with and accept personal responsibility for providing your share perpetual reparations for the same, you're a racist.

I mean I say "Dude its just talk." and He says, "Oh I know. I don't trust him at all. I just think that he's the only one actually even bothering to talk the talk."

It's even more removed for me. I'm in the camp that thinks the train has already jumped the tracks and is going to be very much not fine when it hits the bottom of the gorge it's fallen into. Nobody, not Trump, not Cruz, not a rainbow farting unicorn, is going to fix it.

And for that matter, I don't even think the Hildabeast or the Bernster can really break it much worse. Yeah, Doom n Gloom.

So for me, it's not about who gets elected or what they'll actually do, it's about what taboos the American public is willing to break. Like Steve said way up above, our elites are embarrassed to be associated with us and what we think of as American. So, what are we going to do? Are we going to let these globalist prigs scold us about our behavior and sheepishly try not to embarrass them so much in front of their Davos friends?

Or are we going to say "Fuck you, leave if you don't like it here."

"Trump 2016, Because Fuck You" really is the slogan. Because we won't be ready to deal with the train wreck we have coming until we're ready to say that to the people who caused it.

One thing I don't like about politics is that I start sounding like a racist when I am not

Of course you are a racist, I have been called a bigot for not wanting to have sex with a guy I knew was HIV+. That's where the goalposts are moving to. And no he didn't know my views on Human Biodiversity at the time.

Face it, the NWO, with all of its cultural and moral rot, is here. And it is here to stay, and grow.

The only thing that is going to save America, is a massive Christian revival, and blood. Lots of blood. And that massive Christian revival must also touch the millions of local, county, state, and federal bureaucrats.

In the flesh, it is Trump, but in the spirit, I know that Trump is not going to make America great again. At best, he will be a splinter in the elites ass.

I know what you mean, Student. Anytime I see a Trump post I know there's going to be at 25% Southron LARPing and "I really don't care but here's a 3000 word effortpost but let me remind you I really don't care" in the comments.

In 2008 a lot of well-meaning, heartfelt liberals were responding to the Ron Paul phenomenon by claiming that they had their own Ron Paul in Dennis Kucinich, the feckless representative from Ohio, who presented all the politically-correct buzzwords about peace, etc. I looked him up, and realized something that seemed to me very important, but that I haven't seen mentioned anywhere: The real difference between Dennis Kucinich and Ron Paul was/is that Kucinich is a politician, while Ron Paul is not.

True, Dr. Paul spent over 30 years in the House, but before that he was a very successful doctor, who eventually went into politics out of a desire to serve his country. Dr. Paul did not need to be successful in politics either to make a living or to shore up his ego. Nobody could ever accuse "Dr. No" of selling out, because he never took special interest money. Kucinich, otoh, has never been anything but a politician; in fact, when he got unelected for a few years and tried to make it in the real world (as a "consultant", which is really just more politics), he went bankrupt – and had to be bailed out by his friends. Truly pathetic.

Kucinich may have said (some of) the right things, but could he be counted on to follow up? He's a politician. "How do you know when a politician is lying? When his lips are moving." After more than 50 years of observing – or not bothering to observe – the political scene, I simply assume that a politician is lying, until he/she proves otherwise. Of course, politicians don't always lie – only when they need to. Like how Cruz's positions seem to be morphing into near-clones of Trump's, as he keeps being trounced by Trump. Is there anybody actually home – other than an inflated ego that has no real-world skills but has experience only in spending other people's money?

So when the anti-Trump people here keep citing Cruz's "positions" as evidence that he's as good as Trump – or better, since he's more polished, more like a "normal" politician – I'm just not impressed. Yes, he is a normal politician, in fact even archetypal – he comes off sleazy, and there seems to be considerable actual evidence of lies, or at least suspicious secrecy in important areas. And c'mon – he's married to Goldman Sachs, ferchrissakes.

Donald Trump is very different from Ron Paul in personality, and many other respects, but this one thing they have in common: Both have been successful in the real world, and have entered the political arena for the right reason, that they want to help their country. Just the kind of men the Founders hoped would take care of the government they created. None of the others in the field give any kind of a damn about America, except for how it can be exploited for the benefit of their ambitions and the power lust of their owners.

Of course, Trump may be a complete hoax, but that's not yet been proven. The others are almost certainly (or certainly, in some cases) liars. (Well, maybe except for Bernie, who's merely a fool.) It matters not a whit what they say – especially the Republicans, who've shown again and again that what they do in office has no connection to what they say. Trump's an unknown quantity, but there are indications that he might be for real. If he weren't in the picture, I'd be paying the situation no attention at all, because I would already know the outcome.

> That doesn't seem right. Bush the lesser was hated by some of the right people. But quite a lot of the 'wrong' people (and here I'm talking largely about Republicans) loved him too.

OK, I'm willing to concede that point.

> But the decision is sorta like choosing to ride a bike with two flat tyres versus riding a bike that's completely missing the chain. One may be a "better" choice, but you'll get about nowhere riding either one.

If you find Trump completely unacceptable and he wins the nomination, you'll probably still have the option of either the Libertarian or Constitution party candidate. I personally have no problem voting third party when neither of the major party candidates is acceptable. In fact, I've done so for 5 of the past 6 elections. My only regret is that it wasn't 7 of the last 7.

> I'm in the camp that thinks the train has already jumped the tracks and is going to be very much not fine when it hits the bottom of the gorge it's fallen into. Nobody, not Trump, not Cruz, not a rainbow farting unicorn, is going to fix it.

I tend to agree with you, but I don't see anything wrong with letting them try.

While I don't agree with democrats on most things on a personal level I sincerely wish CLinton and Sanders and Obama well, and I would like to again officially retire from online commenting, I become a different person and I don't like that person that I become

Vox, quick observation/question. In the Heat Street article you state "The reason I trust Donald Trump...", however, I recall that you have been pretty emphatic in previous posts or comments that you do not trust Trump, but he is making the right noises on immigration and is worth the gamble, because it is the most important issue and there is a non-zero chance he will follow-through, whereas all the other candidates will definitely make the immigration problem worse. Has your position regarding Trump's trustworthiness changed? Or am I correct to interpret the phrasing to only mean that you trust (i.e., think there is a high probability) he will actually do what he says for the reasons you gave (traitor to his class, alignment of personal interests with American public, vanity/ego, etc.) and that there is no contradiction or change in position regarding whether one should trust Trump?

Some time ago I recall you had a pretty sharp exchange with farmer Tom about the issue of trusting Trump or not, and you explicitly stated that you did not trust Trump. I'm surprised he (or other detractors) has not tried to challenge you about that apparent contradiction (maybe he doesn't read here anymore), since it seemed to me that he was vociferously anti-Trump.

Trump calling bathrooms "discriminatory" and Trump implementing and advocating a policy to ensure all American bathrooms are rape-friendly are two completely different things. Target is doing the latter.

tldr;

Trump says "I'm gonna build a wall," means he has a policy of wall building. Trump says "bathrooms are discriminatory" means he doesn't like non-rape bathrooms.

Policy vs. opinion. It's a real thing. If you don't understand the difference, that's probably why you can't understand how non-stupid people could support Trump.

mature-Craig wrote:While I don't agree with democrats on most things on a personal level I sincerely wish CLinton and Sanders and Obama well, and I would like to again officially retire from online commenting, I become a different person and I don't like that person that I becomeThanks for that update, whoever you are.

At best, he will be a splinter in the elites ass. To the amusement of the serf class.

“I think he knows what Rome is. Rome is the mob, conjure magic for them and they will be distracted. Take away their freedom and still they’ll roar. The beating heart of Rome is not the marble of the senate it’s the sand of the Colosseum. He will bring them death and they will love him for it.”

Escape from Boulder wrote:Vox, quick observation/question...Not that I'm Vox, but you'd be an idiot to trust any presidential candidate of the United States, unless they've already been president for 8 years without incident or double-crossing. And by then, you can't elect them again. That's why Vox says he's willing to "roll the dice" with Trump rather than anyone else. Presidential elections are always a gamble.

The reason Trump is more trustworthy than other candidates is simply that he has the least incentive to lie, given the circumstances, because he has the least to gain. He already has money and power (I think it should be fairly obvious by now that billionaire business owners exert more power with lobbying than individual elected officials, and therefore if you want "real power" in America, become a billionaire). The only conceivable scenario I can think of where Trump would want to become president purely for his own sake, is that his influence is completely snubbed out (it wasn't and isn't) by his fellow elites and he is blocked from lobbying effectively by a coordinated effort. That would necessitate a "coup" of sorts in which he becomes president to sweep away regulations blocking his real estate business's growth. However, that is extremely unlikely, and even in the case that Trump would be considering it, extremely risky. Trump has already suffered an estimated $2 billion in brand value loss due to his widely unfavorable image. News articles are popping up daily about random people in the nation boycotting Trump because of his political message.

Most importantly, Trump is free to live a very comfortable life outside of politics, because his family has built a successful business. This isn't something that any other candidate running for president can claim, except for perhaps the Clintons, who could probably live comfortably off of book writing and public speaking deals alone, although perhaps less so after Hillary's illustrious career as Secretary of State. Ted Cruz is an anchor baby that has literally dreamt of being president since he was a small child, by his own admission. He will do anything to become president, and it has shown clearly during the campaign. Similarly, Bernie Sanders has never held a non-political job, to my knowledge. In the 1950's, he was screwing around in Israel with his Marxist pals trying to overthrow the Zionists from within. Politics is his career, and he would already be dead without it. Just like Paul Ryan's appeal in his campaign to become the Speaker (and his current shadow campaign going on right now), Trump is appealing and "trustworthy" because he doesn't NEED/WANT to be president. Plato wrote that the best rulers hate their jobs. America was founded largely on Greek philosophy and this idea holds true with very many Americans today.

The nomination process for 2016 is the GOP's test to see if Republicans genuinely are through with the establishment sleaze which has permeated American politics for a generation. To do so it's pitting the politician equivalent of Robert Tilton (Cruz) against a shrewd, self confident, super competitive, alpha businessman.

To its surprise, the people have rallied around the alpha businessman and left the charlatan kneeling before Glenn Beck.

Consequently, the GOP is making plans for the destruction of its party. It's usefulness is over.

@177. VFM #6306. Piss off. I am completely uninterested in your interpretation of Vox. He can speak for himself, or not, if he thinks I'm being obtuse and/or am not tall of enough for this ride.

I am genuinely curiously why Vox would now choose to use the words "I trust Donald Trump" when he has stated the precise opposite previously and on multiple occasions. Vox is obviously no idiot and I consider it highly improbable that he forgot what he had previously stated and that it was an inadvertent phrasing. Is it just red meat he threw out there for the anti-Trumpsters with whom he has tangled on the issue of trusting Trump?

I'm cheering Trump on myself, but I'm less sanguine that the probability he will follow through on what he is saying is very high; it is non-zero, but still pretty low IMO. As someone upthread stated, he is pissing off all the right people (the bifactional ruling establishment elite, the globalists, the MSM, etc.), so for me the main reason I cheer him on is "Trump! Because Fuck You!". At this point, I've given up on on the electoral process and I don't plan to even bother voting. I was disenfranchised by the non-voting selection of delegates in Colorado, in theory, but not really since I had no plans to vote in any CO caucus/primary if it had been held, having long ago de-registered as a Republican, re-registered to support Ron Paul, and then again de-registering and vowing to never again be or vote Republican. But to paraphrase someone else upthread, it is heart-warming that the American public appears to increasingly be waking up to the con job put on by our rulers, and I hope this will bode well for what comes after the Great Collapse.

I have to wonder what I would think about all of this if I hadn't been reading VD for the last decade and following the Alt Right he exposed me to. I think this is a great piece that expresses what I attempt to say to friends who are both Dems and Reps. I wonder if I just come off sounding like a cynical conspiritard.

I assume I would be as dismayed as my conservative republican family and dreading a Hillary regime and decrying the clown show. It's really weird to watch the civil war happening among people I normally would group tightly together. Mr. laid back pop-a-top Michael Berry has thrown in with the establishment and is starting to sound pretty shrill about it. This realignment in real-time is fascinating.

"The South is NOT overwhelmingly for Trump. More than 60% of the South voted against Trump. He won because the opposition was split."

Prior to Super Tuesday, Bloomberg conducted a regional, combined poll of the southern states voting on Super Tuesday. Their head to head polling showed Trump beating both Cruz and Rubio in hypothetical two-man races. He wouldn't have won "overwhelmingly", but it is not true that he won simply because the opposition was split. Further, voting for one candidate in a field of many does not necessarily constitute a vote against all of the other candidates. By your logic, approximately 80% of the South voted against Ted Cruz.